Predictions as to the FBI findings report:

Location: UNCERTAIN (accuser befuddled, somewhere in Maryland?)

Date of Event: UNKNOWN (accuser vague, sometime in 80s?)

Witnesses: NONE FOUND (those id’d by accuser deny her claim)

We refer the Senate Judiciary committee to 6 prior FBI background reports in depth, where no such allegations or hints of controversy occurred during hundreds of interviews conducted by dozens of agents. All indications are any event that may have occurred went unreported, and unremembered, since that time.

Paraphrasing former Dir. Comey, we find no reasonable prosecutor would, under such circumstances and absent corroboration, proof, or evidence, attempt opening a case.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of October, 2018.

Sr. Agent-In-Charge Elliot Ness

Ugliest take-away from the accuser-v-Kavanaugh hearing last week was the sight of Senate Democrats, virtually all degreed lawyers, spurning presumption of innocence…

…a fundamental concept of rule-of-law. So is burden-of-proof, similarly disregarded.

Hence the ‘ugliest’ assertion: for legal minds to perform such a lawless act can ONLY be because of the political expedience of their disgraceful treatment of Kavanaugh.

NO OTHER REASON IS POSSIBLE.

Did we mention they’re ALL degreed lawyers and legislators who MAKE law?

Presumption-of-innocence and burden-of-proof concepts are not casually disposable commodities. In any other setting, these ‘legislators’ would be up on ethics charges.

Oppose Kavanaugh for ideological reasons…but not for this political ambush.

At the end of the day, American concepts of justice are at stake. For a Senator to vote against Kavanaugh for such politically expedient purposes violates their oath of office.

For those Senators who may have forgotten, they swore to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Asserting ‘credibility’ to baseless allegations, by spurning rule-of-law ideals for burden of proof and presumption of innocence, does not “bear true faith and allegiance”.

What worse abuse of office could a lawmaker perform…than to TRAMPLE rule-of-law?

Democrat voters once again are faced with a choice – continue voting for such ethically challenged political operatives, or rebuke them…vote GOP…to negate such behavior.

Failing that, Senators/Representatives making public statements to smear Kavanaugh with such ugly tactics should be impeached by the House, and tried by the Senate.

Those accused, of course, would not be eligible to sit as jury in the Senate trial, and as it only seems to be Democrats who have violated their oath, conviction is guaranteed.

If that doesn’t shut down rule-of-law ethics abuse, we don’t know what will.

We repeat, for clarity…

Allowing bad behavior GUARANTEES more bad behavior.

Anyone who has kids knows this, and it doesn’t change that much as people get more mature…it just gets more complex in the depth of the manipulative, calculating nature.

Whether your middle-schooler or your congressman, failing to correct bad behavior will add to the problem…the sooner ‘moderate’ Republicans understand this, the better.

Those who whine about an accuser ‘being heard, so, she must be credible’…ignore the very basic concept of PROOF – without that fundamental key, no one is safe.

Anyone has a right to come forward, but no one has a ‘right’ to be believed. Conflating one with the other is meant to unfairly force an emotional element into the equation.

Sunday’s interview of Senator Cotton (R-AR) on CBS is a case in point. The interviewer tried to force the Senator into conceding credibility to an accuser simply because she came forward, totally ignoring the fact not a shred of corroboration or proof existed.

“DICKERSON: You said when we last talked in November, “I think it’s important that women feel they can come forward. That’s a good change in the norms and the expectations of our society.” A woman came forward here. And you’re saying basically she said nothing credible. How can women come forward, if when they do they’re- they’re told they’re not credible?” (bold emphasis added)

That last sentence is key – FakeNews and their Democrat cohort would have us believe the credibility of an accuser, with NO proof or corroboration, cannot be questioned.

To them, the seriousness of the charge is all that matters…lack of evidence be damned.

(For that matter – in the case of Kavanaugh’s accuser – overwhelming evidence that she ISN’T CREDIBLE be damned: she’s a woman, he’s a Trump nominee…’nuff said.)

This turns centuries of settled law upside down, but, hey…when it’s a Republican or a Trump nominee in the crosshairs, all bets are off, and rule-of-law no longer applies.

Disgusting.